Slashdot Mirror
SONICblue Granted Broad Patent on DVR Technology
hayb writes: "In another miscue from the U.S. Patent office, Sonicblue has received a patent for everything under the PVR sun. Now comes the question if they will go after others, or at least Tivo. To quote the first line of the patent: 'USPTO patent number 6,324,338 also covers methodology that creates, names, prioritizes and manages recorded programs on the hard drive for DVRs.'"
I wonder if ATI's All-In-Wonder and others will get swept up in this? Just a thought since there are several graphics card co's creating TV tuner and recording capabilities in to their cards and providing software for doing TiVo and Replay like functions (record and organize).
Just wondering how far SonicBlue will push the patents? I imagine we'll see TiVo and others reach some sort of license deal and eventually pass the cost on to us in the end, as it usually happens.
-s
In another miscue from the U.S. Patent office
Why is this a miscue? ReplayTV was the first to develop PVR technology and patent it. I can remember first hearing about the ReplayTV several years ago, and then several months later I heard of a competitor called TiVo.
If this patent is a miscue, where is your prior art evidence to back that up?
"And like that
Both companies claim they have patents....
:
From SonicBlue (aka ReplayTV):
USPTO patent number 6,324,338 also covers methodology that creates, names, prioritizes and manages recorded programs on the hard drive for DVRs.
"This patent and other forthcoming ReplayTV patents will establish SONICblue as the leading provider of Digital Video Recording technology," said Ken Potashner, chairman and CEO, SONICblue. "Over the next five to seven years, we expect the DVR to become as prevalent in the home as the VCR is today."
From Tivo
TiVo, headquartered in Sunnyvale, Calif. is the creator of personal television. TiVo's easy-to-use service and patented consumer electronics technology will allow consumers to take control of their television viewing experience by teaching TiVo their likes and dislikes.
So, it's going to come down to a lawsuit. Whichever company can show they had the first working, worthwhile thoughts will eventually be able to force the other to pay royalties. Does this mean either will go out of business? Probably not, it just means one is going to be $10/box more, and that $10 might going to the competitor instead of the CEO.
Video for Online Dating Profiles
I think this kind of statement sort of implies that they may use it as a stick to beat down their competitors, including Tivo. Unfair, since ReplayTV actually disappeared from the market for a time, suddenly popping up as SonicBlue.
But what really bothers me is the destructive effect that this may have. Tivo has worked very hard to not only provide a unique and valuable product to their customers, they've also been very careful to "play nice" with the networks. They have, for instance, refused to put a 30-second-skip button on the remote. They've also, discouraged copying of programs from the harddrive (how effective that is, I don't know). And so on.
Meanwhile ReplayTV/SonicBlue have done the skip button, and with the latest incantations of their boxen, claim to be able send shows between units (a scheme that will undoubtably be cracked, if it hasn't already) which, of course, can't make the networks happy at all.
Terrific. So now are choices are a company that the networks like, but that is doomed by patent infringments (maybe), or a "bad-boy" that the networks will eventually crush because of their disregard for the networks' well-being... Ugh....
And somewhere, in the shadows, is Microsoft (UltimateTV) waiting to step in with their "Content owner-friendly" box....
Anyone want to buy a TV-set? Cheap?
Where the value of X-Mailer: is the true measure of a man...
OK, I'm not sure, but if you can prove that you've been doing something before someone who has it patented, doesn't that mean that:
A. The pattent is invalid, or
B. They can't sue you/charge you for useing the pattent?
I might be wrong, but with all the proof that TiVo has that they've been useing this idea since before it was patented (it would be VERY hard to get that thrown out). Also, remember that Microsoft's Ultimate TV is also a DVR, so if they wanted to collect money they would either have to
A. Go against Microsoft (we all know how well that would work), or
B. Selectivly prosecute, which TiVo could argue about.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
This patent is not just about recording video onto hard disks. Most of the claims are dependent on a clause that says "a processor selecting future shows from a channel guide database for recording based on said user specified criteria, wherein the selection of shows is based on one of either pattern matching or fuzzy logic analysis of the user specified criteria and the channel guide database, and wherein the processor further selects for removal a previously recorded show having a lower priority than the selected future shows if insufficient capacity exists for recording the future shows;" This allows you the box to learn that you like SciFi and automatically record all the SciFi shows.
Tivo does EXACTLY what you've described, and yes it can all be done in software. All of these patents are just about processing television listings in certain ways. The problem is that they aren't patents on methods. They are patents on the ability of the device (not the method it uses) to figure out what you like to watch.
My company developed a multimedia system that recorded (crude greyscale) video to a hard drive, in real time, with random access to files. We also wrote a groundbreaking proposal for a digital information storage media standard (UDiS Media). Said proposal sent to various major electronics companies and written up in at least one British computer magazine. In the UDiS Media proposal, we described a machine (based on the aforementioned multimedia system that would record TV programming based on content of interest. When? In 1988. We intend to develop our machine and it will be good to know that our 'prior art' (which was demonstrated in the UK in 1988, and in the USA in 1991) will at the very least mean SonicBlue / ReplayTV will not be able to sue us when it comes to some of the basic claims. A final point of interest, I just today found out that my US patent attorney represents SonicBlue. What a tangled web we have weaved.
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
Just because one company has a patent doesn't necessarily mean it will put another out of business. (I know what I'm talking about, I was a US patent paralegal for the #1 computer company for several years.)
If either company holds any value to Intellectual Property, they should have a flock of patents coming down the pipeline for any given product. (Don't go looking for them because you won't find them until they're issued.) Patents usually take 2 years to issue and they are typically issued with fairly specific claim language (unless it's something stellar like a time-machine).
Also, many companies have in-house attorneys who handle IP problems like this all day long. It's nothing new. Often times both companies will end up cross-licensing their patents with each other to keep new competitors at bay.
In the computer industry, this kind of thing happens all the time. There is so much cross-licensing going on between the major computer manufacturers you'd think it was a cartel. I'm not even kidding.
Trust me, this is nothing to get worked up about. The only reason that the Amazon one-click patent was so problematic is that their competitors didn't have any patents at all, and business methods (at the time) were thought to be unpatentable. Did it put their competitors out of business? No. It just made things really uncomfortable.
Even in most worst cases, a negligible royalty fee is usually negotiated for - and even then, the damages (royalties) only START since the time the "infringing" company is put on notice from the owner of the patent.
*yawn*
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
Anonymous Coward is right. We should take a few moments to READ the patent before commenting on it. My initial reaction was an off-the-cuff remark - another reason not to post unless you have something to SAY. Anyway, on to the point:
IANAL, but I readthe 338 Patent and a couple of the others. This patent references pre-existing technologies and - my reading - basically says that they're patenting their feature set and particular implementation. Nothing new here. Yeah, they may be over-reaching, but that despends on your point of view and what they do.
It's something that, yes, a company can whip out and club another one over the head with. Yeah, it can be used to squeeze royalties out of someone for an infringement. Any patent does that, for a while anyway.
All patents are designed to squeeze the maximum claim for the maximum legal "protection" and financial gain. You stand on the shoulders of prior art, but ultimately what decides whether you violated patent rights or not is a judge or collection thereof, the size of your bribe, and/or your legal budget. There are whole business that do nothing but hold patents and sue the crap out of any industry player that does what that paper says (e.g. link to a document) and make them pay a fee that will be large enough to satisfy the blood sucking leeches, but cheaper that going to court over it. They may allege something STUPID, like they invented the wheel or the hyperlink, but it's often cheaper to pay than litigate and risk huge leech fees and huge damages. This is patent law, friends. Blah.
Anyway, my personal opinion is that patents are freaking stupid. They don't protect what they should protected. Instead, they're used like clubs to beat other companies with. Another tool in the legal arsenal.
I'd rather see a return to trial by combat. Each company chooses a champion who fight it out to the death (or tap-out) or whatever. If only Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Xerox Parc squared off in an arena with axes or something. Panem et Circenses.